Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just something I've often wondered...

I'm guessing that if you posess a gun, you are pro-gun owning. As such, at what sort of weapon do you feel the line should be drawn? I'm very hazy about what is and isn't allowed in respective countries, and I'm looking to find out when some think enough is enough.

IIRC, the US (or at least certain States in the US) have a Magazine size limit?

So, off we go.

Please note, I'm not doing this looking for things to criticise or scorn, just genuinely interested in such things.

I draw the line at rocket propelled chainsaws. You don't need anything more than that.

The "assault weapon ban" with the arbitrary magazine limitation ended. All but a handfull of states allow such items again
(laughable subject, no? I thought "assaulting" was bad behavior, not hardware, lol)
I could draw the line with a R(ights)AW stance with the "keep and bear" line. Thus allowing you to own anything you can carry and operate alone without any aid.

I would just be happy with a repeal of the National Firearm Act of 1934. Because it's that stupid and arbitrary.

Illeix wrote:I would just be happy with a repeal of the National Firearm Act of 1934. Because it's that stupid and arbitrary.

What does it actually say, and what do you find fault with?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

I think (and for the most part this mirrors most state laws) any weapon function which is specifically designed and used for battlefield operations crosses the line, primarily fully automatic weapons (designed and used specifically to provide suppressive fire for troop movement) and weapons designed to shoot explosive shells (grenade launchers, mortars and artillery) and purposely silenced weapons.

The whole "assault weapon" issue I always thought was a bit silly as any semi-automatic rifle is essentially the same as any other semi-automatic rifle in function whether it looks like an intimidating Soviet battle rifle or a relatively innocuous hunting rifle.

Also, I have to say I am quite enamored with Frazzled's Rocket Propelled Chainsaw! If only, if only...

My PSP has limited memory, and won't allow me to type the tome I'd like to, but...

The act arbitrarily defined "Short barreled weapons" which basically say that a shotgun with a 17.5" barrel is bad, but 18 isn't. Also a pistol with a buttstock is a "short barreled rifle" when logic clearly proves otherwise.

lastly, sound suppressors, which are a wonderful tool to protect your hearing and reduce noise pollution (like car mufflers!)

amongst other things, but thats most of it.

and machine guns I believe, and greeners.

Machine guns have been out of production for the civilian market in the US since the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986, the thune amendment I believe.

repealing the NFA would do little. The precious few transferrable relics out there would still cost $8,000+ USD as they were all artificially made collectors' items.

Once saw a programme on Channel 4, where the guy had a quad gun like the one seen in Waterworld (When the Smokers are attacking the Atoll) in his backgarden.

Is that legal, or the sort of 'well, it's illegal but hardly portable so sod it' type thing?

Also, being British none to up on guns by name, so post piccies. I don't mind a bit of gunporn.

That was a M2 quad mount, a WWII US military anti aircraft setup.

Now whilst I can see the appeal of having one (LOADSA DAKKA!) isn't that, well, a tad excessive?

It's legal if it was made before 1986, his state allows it, he filled out a LOT of paperwork, sent said paperwork to the ATF, paid a special tax, waited up to nine months for the FBI to do a background check that takes thirty minutes, filled out MORE paperwork, pay a boatload of money for the item, possibly a 5-15 day waiting period before taking possesion of it and finally living in fear of a platoon of ATF agents "forcefully inspecting" his property.

But yes, perfectly legal.

Illeix wrote:My PSP has limited memory, and won't allow me to type the tome I'd like to, but...

The act arbitrarily defined "Short barreled weapons" which basically say that a shotgun with a 17.5" barrel is bad, but 18 isn't. Also a pistol with a buttstock is a "short barreled rifle" when logic clearly proves otherwise.

lastly, sound suppressors, which are a wonderful tool to protect your hearing and reduce noise pollution (like car mufflers!)

amongst other things, but thats most of it.

Law often has to be specific like that. For example, you can legally vote when you are 18 or 20 (whatever, depending on your country) NOT when a judge or jury decides it is reasonable that you can vote.

Once you start banning classes or types of weapons, you run into that problem of specificity. It could be avoided by not banning any weapons at all.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Now whilst I can see the appeal of having one (LOADSA DAKKA!) isn't that, well, a tad excessive?

You've not seen the mosquitoes around these parts...

Therein lies the problem. The NFA is not specific. It applies to barrel length, overall length and attachments.

All of which could be modified with few or no tools, and have little effect on the firearms function.

So what about Sniper and Anti-Tank type rifles? Are they legal? (thinking the one in Robocop what knacks ED-209)

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Once saw a programme on Channel 4, where the guy had a quad gun like the one seen in Waterworld (When the Smokers are attacking the Atoll) in his backgarden.

Is that legal, or the sort of 'well, it's illegal but hardly portable so sod it' type thing?

Also, being British none to up on guns by name, so post piccies. I don't mind a bit of gunporn.

Frazzled wrote:That was a M2 quad mount, a WWII US military anti aircraft setup.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Now whilst I can see the appeal of having one (LOADSA DAKKA!) isn't that, well, a tad excessive?

Hell, buying a single belt of rounds alone would set you back, enough to get some decent DAKKA out of all four would drain most households.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So what about Sniper and Anti-Tank type rifles? Are they legal? (thinking the one in Robocop what knacks ED-209)

Sniper rifle = Hunting rifle and Anti-tank would be either explosive or big enough to qualify as explosive anyway.

If the bore is one half inch or less, or it is a smoothbore designed to accept shotshells or black powder, yes*

*Unless you live in California

And do you need a license to fire them, either in your backyard or on the range, or is it just to own/carry them?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And do you need a license to fire them, either in your backyard or on the range, or is it just to own/carry them?

I think this probably depends on the state, county or even city.

That varies state-by-state, but in most sane districts you are fine if you pass a background check.

So what about non-US Citizens visiting on holiday? Would you be allowed to take me down the gun range to fire a few shots, or is that a no-no.

And if it is a no-no, is it one particularly well enforced?

Well, that's a state-by-state thing too, but it's perfectly fine in my state, and I'd be happy to oblige should you find yourself in my part of rainy Washington State! (I'm sure you'll be used to the weather already )

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So what about non-US Citizens visiting on holiday? Would you be allowed to take me down the gun range to fire a few shots, or is that a no-no.

And if it is a no-no, is it one particularly well enforced?

Oh yea you can blow stuff up real good, you just need a firearm, either from the person you're with or many places rent firearms. You go to Vegas there's even a range that has full auto for fun filled rent. SWMBO has ordered that next time we go to Vegas we're going there (she shot a Tommy gun once and loved it).
You show up in Houston or Austin and we'll make lots of things go boom.

Ah, but is it a legal requirement to 'talk like a gangshta shee?' when firing a Tommy Gun?

Thats legal but its definitely illegal to act like a modern thug and try to shoot sideways

Was told that the hold 'gangsta' angle was a crap idea, due to the spent casings not always ejecting fully, leading to 'banghand'?

1. Holding a Tommy gun sideways would be quite difficult actually.

2. holding a pistol sideways, should not affect ejection, plus its funny to watch. getting your wife to shoot like that while holding the other hand in front of her eyes... priceless!

A case that does not eject fully is called a "stovepipe"

Usually cleared by brushing your hand sharply over the ejection port, or the "tap and rack" i.e. tap the magazine to ensure it's seated correctly, then rack the slide. The latter is less efficiant as you usually eject the next (unfired) cartridge along with it and it takes longer.